2012 Traffic Safety Behaviors Survey – Executive Summary

Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety

Contents

Introduction 3

Section 1: Overarching Findings 4

Section 2: Summary of Key Findings 7

Introduction

In 2012, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Office of Traffic Safety retained Corona Insights to conduct a random telephone survey of Minnesotans for the purpose of examining attitudes, opinions and behaviors of Minnesotans with regard to a variety of traffic safety issues, as well as their awareness of various efforts to promote safer driving in the state. The survey was conducted with 939 residents between July 16th and August 3rd, 2012.

In addition to understanding the awareness, attitudes and behaviors of the state’s population as a whole, the survey also sought to understand how various groups of subpopulations differed in their responses. Specifically, the study was designed to examine how responses varied by age, gender, and geographic areas (i.e., urban and rural). In addition, the survey specifically examined findings for a key target of the traffic safety campaigns: young unmarried males (defined as males between the ages of 18 and 34 who are not currently married). Complete survey findings, as well as detailed survey approach and methodology are included in the full report submitted by Corona Insights to the Office of Traffic Safety in September, 2012.

Meanwhile, in this Executive Summary, we first provide an overview of how aggregate responses to some of the survey’s questions related to aggregate responses to other questions, especially those related to awareness, perceptions and behaviors. Next, we provide key findings related to seat belt, speeding, and impaired driving behaviors and enforcement awareness. Key findings on traffic safety messaging and message sources are also presented. Additional analyses on cell phone use, texting while driving and awareness of the texting while driving law in Minnesota are also included.

For a complete overview of all survey findings please refer to the full survey report posted on the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Office of Traffic Safety website.

executive summary – Report Layout

This report is divided into a number of major sections, which include the following:

è  Section 1: Overarching Findings – This section provides a detailed description of the approach used for this project in terms of goals and methodologies used.

è  Section 2: Summary of Key Findings – This section contains a brief overview of the key findings and themes of the research.Section

section 1: OVERARCHING Findings

A summary of overriding research findings that includes holistic analyses of interrelationships between Minnesota residents’ awareness, perceptions and behaviors and key traffic safety issues of seat belt non-usage, speeding, and driving under the influence of alcohol is included in this section.

Awareness / Pct. /
ALL / 27%
SB/SP / 6%
SB/DUI / 12%
SP/DUI / 15%
SB / 6%
SP / 5%
DUI / 12%
NONE / 17%

ð  Some respondents are simply more likely to be aware of messaging and issues in general. Respondents who are aware of seatbelt law enforcement messaging are more likely than those who are not to be aware of the two other primary types of messaging addressed in the survey (speeding and DUI). Similarly, those who are aware of speeding enforcement messaging are more likely than those who are not to be aware of seatbelt and DUI messaging. Finally, those who are aware of DUI messaging are more likely to be aware of seatbelt messaging as well. Because of this, it is interesting to consider the entire spectrum of awareness rather than a single one of these areas individually.

The table to the right illustrates the percentage of respondents who are aware of all three types of messaging, none of the three, or some combination thereof. A vast majority of respondents (83 percent) had heard of at least some types of messaging, though only roughly one in four (27 percent) were aware of all three types of messaging. Awareness is generally highest for DUI messaging (66 percent in total), while awareness for seatbelt and speeding messaging are similar (51-53 percent).

In addition to simply being more aware of the other types of messaging, respondents who are more aware of more types of messaging are also more likely to be aware of other messaging, such as motorcycle safety, the Minnesota ignition interlock law, and laws against texting and driving.

Perceived Risk / Pct. /
ALL / 54%
SB/SP / 5%
SB/DUI / 8%
SP/DUI / 14%
SB / 2%
SP / 2%
DUI / 10%
NONE / 4%

ð  There is a very strong correlation between perceptions of the risk of getting a ticket (or arrested) for various behaviors. Similar to the above, respondents who believe that the risk of them being penalized for not wearing a seatbelt is high tend to also believe that the risk of their being penalized for speeding or diving under the influence is high as well. In other words, the perception of risk for unacceptable driving behaviors tends to be either high or low, but does not seem to vary significantly between the three types of violations.

The table to the right illustrates the percentage of respondents who believe they would be at least “somewhat likely” to be penalized for the three behaviors, none of the three behaviors, or some combination thereof. Roughly half (54 percent) of respondents felt that they would be at least “somewhat likely” to be penalized for all three behaviors, and very few (4 percent) felt that they would be “very unlikely” to be penalized for any of the three behaviors. Similar to the trend seen above for awareness, more feel they would be penalized for DUI (86 percent) compared to speeding (75 percent) or seatbelt offenses (69 percent).

Good Behavior / Pct. /
ALL / 26%
SB/SP / 1%
SB/DUI / 52%
SP/DUI / 2%
SB / 12%
SP / 0%
DUI / 5%
NONE / 1%

ð  Those who exhibit one of the three unacceptable behaviors are more likely to also exhibit other unacceptable behaviors. Again, there is a strong correlation between those who don’t wear their seatbelt and those who tend to speed. Similarly, those who drank and drove are also more likely to talk on a cell phone or text while driving. As was seen previously, some individuals are simply more risky with their behaviors, and that attitude manifests itself across the undesirable behaviors.

The table to the right illustrates the percentage of respondents who exhibit each of the three “good” behaviors. That is, people who wear their seat belt “all of the time,” who “never” drive more than 5 mph over the speed limit, and who have not driven after drinking in the past 30 days. Roughly one-fourth of respondents (26 percent) exhibited good behaviors in all three categories, and an additional 52 percent exhibited good behaviors in the two areas aside from speeding. Overall, respondents are the most likely to exhibit good behaviors with regard to seat belt usage (91 percent), followed by DUI (85 percent) and speeding (29 percent).

High Scores / Pct. /
A/R/B / 27%
A/R / 12%
A/B / 11%
R/B / 16%
A / 10%
R / 8%
B / 9%
NONE / 7%

ð  Behaviors are much more strongly correlated with perceived risk than with awareness of messaging. Using the information discussed above for overall awareness, the research team created a “score” for each respondent based on their responses for awareness, perception of risk, and good behavior across all three behavior categories. In other words, this score evaluated how aware a person is overall (A), how they asses risk of enforcement (R), and how well they behaved (B) in general. Using these scores, respondents are classified as having a “high” score if they are in the top one-third (roughly) of all respondents in that category.

The table to the right illustrates the results of this analysis, though readers should use caution in interpreting these raw percentages given that the scoring system is somewhat arbitrary in nature. However, this analysis is useful in that it illustrates a trend seen across the survey’s results: those who perceive their risk to be higher are less likely to exhibit bad behaviors. However, the tie between awareness and behaviors is somewhat weaker. In addition, those who exhibited these behaviors were also more likely to believe in the importance of additional traffic safety laws, such as the primary seat belt law.

ð  There are significant demographic differences between respondents who have high awareness, perception of risk, and good behaviors. In addition to illustrating the correlation between perceived risk and behavior, this analysis was useful in identifying some key differences between respondents of various types. Not surprisingly, individuals who scored lowly in all three categories are more likely to be young, unmarried, and male. In addition, these individuals are less likely to be non-Hispanic whites (and the opposite was true among those who scored highly in all three categories). However, what is perhaps most intriguing from this analysis is that young unmarried males make up four in five respondents who have a high level of awareness, but low levels of risk perception and behavior. In other words, many young unmarried males are aware of the various types of enforcement messaging, but this messaging does not necessarily correlate with high levels of perceived risk or good behaviors.

section 2: Summary of Key Findings

Readers are encouraged to review the tables in the full report for a full overview of how respondents answered the various questions included in the survey. However, the following is a brief discussion of some of the key findings and implications of the survey.

Seat Belt Behaviors and Enforcement Awareness

Narrative: Seat belt non-usage is predominantly a “male,” “young,” and a “young unmarried male” issue. While males overall are more likely than females to have noticed recent seat belt enforcement efforts, this does not necessarily hold true among younger residents, young unmarried males or young males overall. And perceptions of seat belt enforcement lag. In particular, perceptions of likelihood of seat belt enforcement among males, young residents, and young unmarried males are equal to statewide residents’ perceptions at best, but more commonly fall short of these. Overall, it is not necessarily surprising that these young and male populations are also less likely to assign a high importance to the Primary seat belt law in Minnesota.

Several key findings related to seat belt behaviors and enforcement awareness are given below.

1.  Males and various male subpopulations, including young unmarried males, are less likely to wear their seat belts “all of the time.” Ninety one (91) percent of all statewide respondents self-report wearing their seat belts “all of the time.” This includes 96 percent of females who report this and 87 percent of males, a statistically significant difference.

Otherwise, just 81 percent of young unmarried males report this seat belt usage behavior. This is the lowest rate among top-level subpopulations examined in this current study. Other male subpopulations across the spectrum including urban males, rural males, and males across all ages (i.e. both under 35 and 35 and over) lag their female counterparts in seat belt usage by statistically significant margins.

Differences in usage observed in rural versus urban regions, with lower usage in rural areas, is also driven by males, including high proportions of pickup drivers, who are also much more likely to be males. Source: Exhibits 1 and 24

2.  While males are more likely than females, overall, to be aware of recent seat belt enforcement efforts, some key male subpopulations are less likely to be aware. Males as a group are statistically more likely than females (57 percent versus 45 percent) to be aware of recent seat belt enforcement efforts. However, key male subpopulations such as those under 35 and young unmarried males across both urban and rural areas are only slightly more likely, if at all, to be more aware versus statewide respondents or their comparable groups (i.e. females or “all other”). Source: Exhibit 2

3.  Key male subpopulations are less likely to perceive they will experience seat belt enforcement. Males overall are only slightly less likely than females (i.e. 33 percent versus 36 percent “very likely”) to perceive a high chance of seat belt enforcement when not wearing a seat belt. However, among all male subpopulations examined, with the exception of one, males are statistically less likely versus females or “all others” to believe they will get a ticket if they do not wear their seatbelt. This includes both young male and young unmarried male subpopulations across both urban and rural areas. Source: Exhibit 4

4.  Males are less likely to assign importance to the Primary seat belt law. While 58 percent of respondents statewide consider the Primary law as “very important,” 47 percent of males assign this same importance level. Contributing to this lower rate is that only 38 percent of young unmarried males have this opinion, as well as 41 percent of males under 35 years old. Source: Exhibit 5